Sunday, December 27, 2009

The Yemenis Respond to Brooke Shields

If you're old enough, you might remember back to the early 80s when Calvin Klein wheeled out a nubile, jailbait-aged Brooke Shields to coo about what came between her and her Calvin Klein jeans. The ads suggested with a noticeable lack of subtlety that la Shields might be going, uh, commando. The ads were considered pretty explosive at the time.

Speaking of explosives, as you've likely heard, we came perilously close to having a terrorist blow a plane out of the sky on Christmas Day. It appears that the terrorist received training and special undergarments in Yemen.

In Yemen, it appears what comes between someone and their Calvins is underwear laced with PETN.

So what to do about those Yemenis currently held at evil, awful Gitmo? Well, like the movie title says, it's complicated, as Politico reports:

Growing evidence that the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a commercial airliner as it landed in Detroit Friday spent time in Yemen and may have been fitted with customized, explosive-laden clothing there could complicate the U.S. government’s efforts to send home more than 80 Yemeni prisoners currently at Guantanamo Bay.

Since Yemenis represent almost half of the roughly 200 remaining prisoners at Gitmo, new hurdles to their resettlement could spell more trouble for President Barack Obama’s plan to close the island prison while transferring a limited number of detainees to a prison in the U.S. Six Yemeni nationals were returned home earlier this month, and officials hoped more transfers would follow.

Politico, ever the master of euphemism, is referring to the dude's underwear. Yeah, I suppose you don't want to send 80 Yemeni commandoes who were all active in fighting the Great Satan back to the place where they make the Calvin Klein Semtex line of exploding underwear.

I know, I know, Gitmo is doubleplus ungood evil evil !!!ELEVENT!Y! evil because Darth Chaney and Chimpy McHitlerburton were fond of using it to house the innocent victims of their corrupt regime and whatnot. But may I ask an impertinent question? Why the hell would you send anyone to Yemen?

The White House had no comment on how Abdulmutallab’s history might impact future prisoner releases or official dealings with Yemen.

Axelrod! Where are my focus group results?

However, U.S. officials have worked intensely in recent months to support the government of Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh and to obtain assurances that Yemenis returned home would not take part in violence.

11 comments:

Mark, I gotta tell ya, I read this twice and am still trying to figure what your point is.

Are you equating the Yemeni government, which has been exceedingly cooperative with the US over the last few years and launched several large US supported offensives against al Queada operatives in Yemen over the last two weeks, with al Queada operatives and cells inside Yemen?

Are you saying that the Obama administration isn't paying enough attention to what is going on inside Yemen? Because, if that is the case, it doesn't jibe with any of these stories:

Or are you just trying, with the McHitlerburton rant, to show how misguided folks like I am for suggesting that there might be better ways to advance your cause in an asymetrical war than abandoning your countries principles, philosophical and legal traditions and legally binding treaties?

It's an honest question. I'm just not sure where you're going with this.

In the meantime, the Green Revolution has been catapulted into open rebellion this weekend and I don't think this was mentioned once on any of the Sunday morning shows today. Iran may be on the brink, potentially a game changing event for the World, and no mention on any major networks. The story of the year is taking place...and everyone's talking about Tiger Woods.

Or are you just trying, with the McHitlerburton rant, to show how misguided folks like I am for suggesting that there might be better ways to advance your cause in an asymetrical war than abandoning your countries principles, philosophical and legal traditions and legally binding treaties?

It's an honest question. I'm just not sure where you're going with this.

An honest question wouldn't be prefaced with a statement about "abandoning principles, philosophical and legal traditions and legally binding treaties," now would it? Especially when all those matters remain in honest dispute, no matter whether you've made up your mind on the issues or not.

Sorry if I don't make myself clear. We continue to see a lot of problems from Yemen. The government may or may not be cooperating, but Al-Qaida is operating quite openly there. And we have a bunch of nasty Yemeni nationals out at Gitmo. I don't have any confidence that the Yemeni government, which seems to be weak at best, is a reliable partner, no matter how many links you throw at me. They need to do better, a lot better, before I would send anyone back there.

What I'm saying, with heavy snark, is that we have in front of us another example of what we are up against. And based on what I've seen, we're damned lucky we didn't lose 300 people on Christmas day.

As for Iran, I agree -- huge story. Haven't heard enough yet to know what's happening, but I'll be checking it out.

to show how misguided folks like I am for suggesting that there might be better ways to advance your cause in an asymetrical war than abandoning your countries principles, philosophical and legal traditions and legally binding treaties?

richjust what are these principles and traditions?you see, whenever i hear the left crying about about principles and traditions, my bullshit meter goes up... way up...because there has never been a principle or tradition of this nation,or its people, that the left wants to preserve.and why they prefer the lable 'progressive'.

help me out,here.you are a resonable lefty. maybe you can tell me what these things are?hurry, before the left decides to change them again next week.

Gino, My apologies for not answering you fast enough. I was watching a football game, and didn’t realize there was some type of protocol on this. My bad, but you ought to think about switching to decaf. The principles and traditions that I speak about don’t need much looking up. My understanding of our country, at the highest level, is that it is a constitutional democracy that is grounded in respect for the individual and is based upon the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Torturing another human being, and by torturing, I mean deliberately committing an act of physical or psychological cruelty on a defenseless person, is categorically evil because its violation of human dignity. Even though torture was a common practice throughout Europe in the 18th Century, both in warfare and criminal law prosecution, our Founding Fathers recognized it for the evil that it was. And, as they did on so many other issues, they turned their back on European tradition. They enshrined the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, established Habeas Corpus as a Universal right, and abolished the use of torture in wartime. (In fact, General Washington made this a defining mark of the American military when he would not allow his soldiers to torture Hessian mercenaries after the Battle of Trenton). Washington insisted on humane treatment of all military prisoners as a defining mark of a new civilization. He also banned his troops from celebrating Guy Fawkes Day in 1775 because it was fused with anti-Catholic propaganda and was used to exploit the fear of Catholic terrorism to justify torture for political purposes. Additionally, John Adams argued that humane treatment of prisoners were a moral and strategic requirement of our Democracy. They understood that the connection between liberty and torture is a close one, and their revulsion against torture was part of their vision for liberal democracy. President Lincoln also recognized the cancer of torture for what it was andin 1863, in the middle of our greatest historical crisis, he instituted the first formal code of conduct for the humane treatment of prisoners of war. (Lincoln’s code eventually became the model for the1929 Geneva Convention). When it became apparent that prisoners had been tortured by US Armed Forces in the Philippines, upon becoming President, Teddy Roosevelt ordered an immediate halt to the practice and a full review of what had taken place and who was responsible. Eisenhower made a point of guaranteeing decent treatment be given to European Axis POWs in World War II, and MacArthur ordered the same in the Pacific. MacArthur also ordered that the Geneva Conventions be applied to North Koreans in the Korean War, even though the U.S. hadn’t ratified the conventions yet. And in the Vietnam War, the US extended the conventions to the Viet Cong prisoners even though we were not required to. Is that enough on principles and traditions?Now I am not dumb enough to think that this means that the US never tortured. It’s a simple sad fact that torture was a deep part of the American way of life while slavery still existed, that it had a widespread application throughout the ante-bellum and Jim Crow South (and elsewhere), and was used extensively against Native Americans in our slow march West. But it was never sanctioned at the highest levels of our Government, regardless of the current threat, and it is clear from our history that we have been moving away from the practice of torture since our inception. I hope to God that isn’t just a ‘lefty’ thing and that the last few years were an aberration.

Also, more than a few of your points are ahistorical. To use just one example, there was a time during WWII when the U.S. stopped taking prisoners in Europe in response to Nazi atrocities, if you know what I mean (and I know you do). And Eisenhower was fine with that.

And you still are asserting that torture took place, even though that is not a universally agreed upon thing. And holding enemy combatants at Gitmo is a separate issue in any event.

And is it still your position that returning Gitmo detainees to Yemen is a good idea?

Mark, I know paragraphs are my friend, but I was in a hurry to answer Gino so I wouldn't get yelled at again;)

"And Eisenhower was fine with that".

Turning a blind eye to acts committed in the heat of battle is a far cry from authorization and approval of illegal acts coming from the Oval office, and I think you know that.

"And you still are asserting that torture took place, even though that is not a universally agreed upon thing".

I had an IRA supporter use this argument on me once too, only he was defending bombing bars that were frequented by British soldiers in Belfast: It's not terrorism, it's an act of war, they are on Irish soil, yadda, yadda, yadda. We all new sleep deprivation, waterboarding, hypothermia, religious and sexual humiliation, etc. were torture when committed by Nazis, Communists and the Viet Cong. Now they aren't for political expediency? Please.

"And is it still your position that returning Gitmo detainees to Yemen is a good idea"?

You forgot to ask me if I had stopped beating my wife. Where did I say that returning Gitmo detainees to Yemen is a good idea? I am not saying it isn't. I don't know enough about it. But I do think we've poisoned the well at Gitmo, and I am all for closing that down. I would like for all of these guys to be sent to Northern Illinois. And if they want to build a Maximum Security prison in Oak Lawn to house them all, I would be 100% behind that idea. I have a lot of friends who could use the work building it.

BTW, I've discussed sending Gitmo detainees to Northern Illinois with between 30 and 50 people. I can count the ones against this on one hand, and they are all "Obama is a Communist from Kenya" type Conservatives who would want puppies band if they found out Obama owned one. My buddy Ray who is a Lt. in the Sheriff's Police and is in command of a cell block at Cook County Jail laughs at the notion that Middle Eastern terrorists would be a security problem at a SuperMax facility. He says that they are known to be model prisoners. The only real problems at SuperMax prisons are the members of well-organized street gangs, outlaw motorcycle gangs and the Aryan Brotherhood, which is what he deals with every day.

Turning a blind eye to acts committed in the heat of battle is a far cry from authorization and approval of illegal acts coming from the Oval office, and I think you know that.

Not if you're at the business end of the act.

I had an IRA supporter use this argument on me once too, only he was defending bombing bars that were frequented by British soldiers in Belfast: It's not terrorism, it's an act of war, they are on Irish soil, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Thanks for equating my argument with an IRA supporter. That's fair argumentation. And of course you'll note I didn't make that argument. I said your standards are not universally accepted.

We all new sleep deprivation, waterboarding, hypothermia, religious and sexual humiliation, etc. were torture when committed by Nazis, Communists and the Viet Cong. Now they aren't for political expediency? Please.

I don't think we knew that, honestly. I think we tended to object to things that caused physical injury a whole lot more. And it's not just for political expediency. I might even be convinced that your standards are the right ones, but when your side goes around hollering J'accuse! all the time it tends to make your arguments seem a little less reasonable.

You forgot to ask me if I had stopped beating my wife. Where did I say that returning Gitmo detainees to Yemen is a good idea? I am not saying it isn't.

Guess I got that impression from reading your initial comment, which heaped copious praise on the Yemeni government. I've seen a few pieces since then that are a little less sanguine about the value of the Yemeni government, but we'll leave that aside for now.

I would like for all of these guys to be sent to Northern Illinois. And if they want to build a Maximum Security prison in Oak Lawn to house them all, I would be 100% behind that idea. I have a lot of friends who could use the work building it.

Fine, if you want 'em, you can have 'em. But until such time as an actual Supermax prison is available in northern Illinois, I'd much rather that these dudes be kept someplace else. The Thomson facility is not such a prison and it will be quite some time before it would fit the criteria. And for now, Gitmo is a fine choice.

And if you insist on building it in the Chicago area, I'd recommend Stickney, if you know what I mean and I suspect you do.

toture of a prisoner is a systematic brutality done for the sake of brutality itself.

it has never been condoned by the bushies.never.

however... tactics such as rendering uncomfortable somebody who may have important info , so as to attain the information is not torture. its called interogation.

you want to define 'toture' down so as to bash Bush.but why wont you bash the Obama administration and its policies toward the treatment of children.these policies are at the highest level, even.but Bush is bad?

you mention, that a right to life is a important american value.I couldnt agree more with you.

but there are no executions taking place at gitmo, and plenty taking place in clinics every day under the approving gaze of Barrack Obama.